Re: Holdings in schema.org (was: Kill the Record!)

Richard and I mocked up a Dune example that used schema:SomeProducts to indicate inventory level. That could be used for comparison too. I see a problem with it, but it can be teased out later.

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Examples/mylib/A1

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:

Could we turn this into a useful discussion and take a look at:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Holdings

Although there may be other purposes to schema.org<http://schema.org> mark-up, it might be good to address ILS holdings displays before moving on to other potential uses.

kc

On 7/5/13 7:25 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
Note that Schema.org<http://Schema.org> <http://Schema.org> already has a mechanism to
indicate "Item" in the FRBR sense: schema:IndividualProduct. If you want
to relate those items to an abstraction that is analogous to FRBR
Manifestation, you can use schema:model to link to a schema:ProductModel.

Aside, I would argue that the defining characteristic of Item is that it
has "location". For physical items that location can be determined by
geolocation (for example). For Web items (aka Web documents), the
location can be determined by its URL.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:55 AM, "Ross Singer" <rxs@talis.com<mailto:rxs@talis.com>
<mailto:rxs@talis.com>> wrote:

But this all really how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
isn't it?

We've already established that we're not interested in defining any
strict interpretation of FRBR in schema.org<http://schema.org> <http://schema.org>: we're
just trying to define a way to describe things in HTML that computers
can parse.

Yes, I think we need to establish what an item is, no I don't think we
have to use FRBR as a strict guide.

-Ross.

On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:51 AM, James Weinheimer
<weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com> <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 05/07/2013 13:30, Ross Singer wrote:
<snip>

I guess I don't understand why offering epub, pdf, and html versions
of the same resource doesn't constitute "items".

If you look at an article in arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org/>, for
example, where else in WEMI would you put the available file formats?

Basically, format should be tied to the item, although for physical
items, any manifestation's item will generally be the same format
(although I don't see why a scan of a paperback would become a new
endeavor, honestly).

In the end, I don't see how digital is any different than print in
this regard.

</snip>

Because manifestations are defined by their format (among other
things). Therefore, a movie of, e.g. Moby Dick that is a
videocassette is considered to be a different manifestation from that
of a DVD. Each one is described separately. So, if you have multiple
copies of the same format for the same content those are called
copies. But if you have different formats for the same content, those
are different manifestations.

The examples in arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org> are just like I
mentioned in archive.org<http://archive.org> <http://archive.org> and they follow a
different sort of structure. You do not see this in a library
catalog, where each format will get a different manifestation, so
that each format can be described.

As a result, things work quite differently. Look for e.g. Moby Dick
in Worldcat, and you will see all kinds of formats available in the
left-hand column.
https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=moby+dick

When you click on an individual record,
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62208367 you will see where all of the
copies of this particular format of this particular expression are
located. This is the manifestation. And its purpose is to organize
all of the *copies*, as is done here.

In the IA, we see something different:
http://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale02melvuoft, where this
display brings together the different manifestations: pdf, text, etc.
There is no corresponding concept in FRBR for what we see in the
Internet Archive, or in arxiv.org<http://arxiv.org> <http://arxiv.org>.

I am not complaining or finding fault, but what I am saying is that
the primary reason this sort of thing works for digital materials is
because there are no real "duplicates". (There are other serious
problems that I won't mention here) In my opinion, introducing the
Internet Archive-type structure into a library-type catalog based on
physical materials with multitudes of copies would result in a
completely incoherent hash.

This is why I am saying that FRBR does not translate well to digital
materials on the internet.

Getting rid of the concept of the "record" has been the supposed
remedy, but it seems to me that the final result (i.e. what the user
will experience) will still be the incoherent mash I mentioned above:
where innumerable items and multiple manifestations will be mashed
together. Perhaps somebody could come up with a way to make this
coherent and useful, but I have never seen anything like it and
cannot imagine how it could work.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html


--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet